I like listening to Osterman, but sometimes his mask slips, revealing that he fancies himself to be a son of Atlanta whose job is to decipher football for people who live north of the Ohio River.
In his most recent Mind Your Banners podcast, he declares that Penix's 2-point conversion attempt was unsuccessful because the ball hit the ground before it hit the pylon (and I'm being generous, because Osterman actually said "he," meaning Penix, rather than the ball, hit the ground before [he] hit the pylon). Osterman never once mentions the plane of the goal line, which means he either is being disingenuous or is clueless, the latter perhaps because of some sort of tunnel vision.
In one camera angle of the play, the pylon is lined up perfectly with the goal line. In fact it almost looks like the pylon is an orange part of the goal line. From that angle . . . .
The camera angle I'm referring to is at the 7:54 9:54 mark in the following video, a reaction video by a good ole Georgia boy who appears to be a bit more knowledgeable about football than Osterman . . . at least in this case.
Step up your game, Zach! The new season gets going in earnest this weekend!
Edit. My bad. I meant the 9:54, not 7:54, mark.
In his most recent Mind Your Banners podcast, he declares that Penix's 2-point conversion attempt was unsuccessful because the ball hit the ground before it hit the pylon (and I'm being generous, because Osterman actually said "he," meaning Penix, rather than the ball, hit the ground before [he] hit the pylon). Osterman never once mentions the plane of the goal line, which means he either is being disingenuous or is clueless, the latter perhaps because of some sort of tunnel vision.
In one camera angle of the play, the pylon is lined up perfectly with the goal line. In fact it almost looks like the pylon is an orange part of the goal line. From that angle . . . .
- the forward edge of the ball disappears behind the pylon before the other part of the ball touches the ground
- the ball contact with the ground leaves a scuff mark out of bounds, and the distance between the scuff mark and the goal line is less than the distance between the the ball's forward edge and its part that first hit out of bounds, certainly much less than the full length of the ball
The camera angle I'm referring to is at the
Step up your game, Zach! The new season gets going in earnest this weekend!
Edit. My bad. I meant the 9:54, not 7:54, mark.
Last edited: